Actually, humanism is happily classified as religion to enjoy such benefits, then when it comes time to analyze our public school systems, humanists wash their hands of any religious inclinations along with having any influence on our schools at all. I know different - I work there.

By the way if your wondering why I would mention humanism, I see humanism as having close ties with evolution and ultimately at the root of the propagation of evolution for the last 50 years.

Hey, anyone else tired of this? What happened to scientific discussion when it comes to evolution? Evolution is such beautiful miraculous occurance in its own right it seems shameful to turn blind eye to it in favor of creationist propaganda on a biology forum when biology's cornerstone is evolution that ties everything together. Without evolution, we have no biology

On side note, I have not seen any biotchr response that scientifically gives firm reasoning for evidence against evolution.

The hand of God may well be all around us, but it is not, nor can it be, the task of science to dust for fingerprints.

damien james wrote:Hey, anyone else tired of this? What happened to scientific discussion when it comes to evolution?

It is more like a religious discussion, or better yet, a religious debate over, as one member put it, whether God is a liar, if there is a different god, or no god altogether. Can you not see that using science to study origins of life and life forms simplfies God to the lowest common denominator in order to "play" science. NASA engages in such a game by claiming that it can travel back in time to witness events billions of years ago as suggested in the first post of this thread. The truth is that we cannot travel through time without a time machine and any supposed origin phenomena occuring beyond what we have in recorded, human history demands one's opinion of the existence and role of a creator or lack thereof. This is hardly scientific at all but more religious.

Evolution is such beautiful miraculous occurance in its own right

Really? Sounds exactly like some religious experience. Have you ever seen "Becoming Human" the video. If not here is the link:

And by the way, is that natural selection thingy really all that "beautiful"? And what about the "breeder" that should be rightfully inferred from artificial selection as the selection process itself was from Darwin? What am I to think of him/her/it (breeder) for this nasty process that you somehow label as "beautiful"?

it seems shameful to turn blind eye to it in favor of creationist propaganda

Huh? As if evolutionists do not spread misinformation regarding creation. The propaganda exists on both sides, but the problem exists that evolutionists are unable to see both sides. I can, because as a creationist, I am forced to teach your religion to children. And, somehow, I do a great job of it as test scores generally show. But the point is, I am on both sides. I am you for a small part of my life - even warding of creationist arguments to keep the peace in my classroom. Then, after class and school, I am me - equipped with the truth.

Picture yourself behind a pulpit teaching creation then talk to me about "creationist propaganda". That experience may change your tune. And by the way, uh, does all the creation materials and lessons in our public schools many years ago consitute propoganda?

Without evolution, we have no biology

Does that mean biology never existed before 1859?

On side note, I have not seen any biotchr response that scientifically gives firm reasoning for evidence against evolution.

I present facts that show evolution to not be science at all, and, therefore, has no evidence to present for itself or against itself. We all have opinions about the existence and role of a creator or lack thereof, and the scientific method simply wont have it.

This is starting to get amusing. Biotchr, your refusal to speak about or even tell us what your religion is seems to indicate some fear on your part to make this the true religious discussion that you somehow claim it to be. So far all you've done is give mindless philosophy and no science.

But I think I've figured out what your religion is, based on the fact that you think God is a liar, and you think people that follow your religion are somehow better than everyone else. The only religion I know of that believes those things is Satanism, so I guess that's you.

Call me when Rome takes over the world and you actually are forced to teach my religion to children. Until then, enjoy your world of dillusion.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

This is starting to get amusing. Biotchr, your refusal to speak about or even tell us what your religion is seems to indicate some fear on your part to make this the true religious discussion that you somehow claim it to be.

I am a Christian.

So far all you've done is give mindless philosophy and no science.

Well, we are talking about evolution.

But I think I've figured out what your religion is, based on the fact that you think God is a liar

God is not a liar. He has communicated with us in the Bible and has been very straightforward about how He created us and everything else around us. You make God out to be a liar in favor of your own stupidnatural god.

, and you think people that follow your religion are somehow better than everyone else.

That typifies many, many scientists who judge those who are not prone to sit around studying science as "science illiterates". These people are just plain stupid you know.

The only religion I know of that believes those things is Satanism, so I guess that's you.

Not really. I am not sure where you could have gotten the idea that God creating us and everything around us the way He said He did could be satanic. I think you may be judging non-science ways as satanic. Science should not lead you in that direction - but its nice to see that it does as it makes your misuse of science glimmering.

Call me when Rome takes over the world and you actually are forced to teach my religion to children.

My religion was the basis of our educational system when it was at its best. I do not wish my religion be taught in public schools, however, I wish to not have yours taught either.

Until then, enjoy your world of dillusion.

I am sorry that I do not belong to your religion but that doesnt mean you have to attack me in such a way. After all, you dont belong to my religion and I dont attack you.

Biotchr, are you capable of reading? You continuously say that you are forced to teach my religion. I ask you again for the third time, since when are you required to teach Catholicism? I would like an answer, please. If you expect me to listen to you, you should at least listen to me.

And don't try to tell me that you don't consider God a liar. You said yourself that you believe that the light from distant stars was created in transit. If that is true, then every event (such as a supernova) observed at a distance of millions of light years (and thus occurred millions of years ago) in fact never happened. According to your reasoning, God (if you believe in Him) created light in transit in order to convince us that events that never happened did in fact happen. He didn't just create the light to show us the stars, He created it to show us a dynamic, moving, changing universe filled with plenty of events that, according to you, never happened. This is calling God a liar, and yes it is a Satanic concept. How can you claim to be Christian while so blatantly contradicting the Biblical teaching that God is truthful?

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Biotchr, are you capable of reading? You continuously say that you are forced to teach my religion. I ask you again for the third time, since when are you required to teach Catholicism? I would like an answer, please. If you expect me to listen to you, you should at least listen to me.

Do you believe in a supernatural Catholic God or a stupidnatural Catholic God? Answer me please?

And don't try to tell me that you don't consider God a liar. You said yourself that you believe that the light from distant stars was created in transit. If that is true, then every event (such as a supernova) observed at a distance of millions of light years (and thus occurred millions of years ago) in fact never happened.

You still havent caught on have you? That is the way God SAID He did it, therefore, God is not a liar. If God had not informed us of such an event then you could call him a liar.

However, the true disgust here is that you use science to consider whether God is a liar while ironically denying any connection to religion. So it is not so much that you dislike my religion, there are many out there for which that holds true. It is that you use science inappropriately and unethically. Origins of the universe, life, and life forms implies the work of a creator and any investigation into origins beyond what we have recorded in human history demands one's opinion of the existence and role of that creator. There is hardly any science involved, just religion.

I find it adverse that you would judge my religion all the while using science to dictate yours.

According to your reasoning, God (if you believe in Him) created light in transit in order to convince us that events that never happened did in fact happen.

He didn't just create the light to show us the stars, He created it to show us a dynamic, moving, changing universe filled with plenty of events that, according to you, never happened.

So you think I am making this stuff up? Where have you been? What do you think people holding to both our religions held to in relation to origins before Darwin? You act as though I have invented what God said. Wake up and realize that you take Darwin's words and the evolutionist's word before God's Word.

This is calling God a liar, and yes it is a Satanic concept.

So did Satan write Genesis? Cant wait to hear your rational on this one.

How can you claim to be Christian while so blatantly contradicting the Biblical teaching that God is truthful?

Wow, as ignorant as you are it makes me fear for future of our children knowing you are educator. If you will like, I will answer your questions. They are not ones that we on this board have not heard hundred of times before though.

biotchr wrote:It is more like a religious discussion, or better yet, a religious debate over, as one member put it, whether God is a liar, if there is a different god, or no god altogether.

Yes, this has turned to religious discussion, which is why I specifically asked what happend to scientific discussion.

biotchr wrote:Can you not see that using science to study origins of life and life forms simplfies God to the lowest common denominator in order to "play" science.

If you believe that God's only role is creation, then you have way different opinion than majority of Christian in this country. According to Christianity, God is involved in all level of human existence. Using evolution to explain biological development has nothing to do with disproving existence of God or diminishing him. It is shame that you have to interpret it that way.

biotchr wrote:NASA engages in such a game by claiming that it can travel back in time to witness events billions of years ago as suggested in the first post of this thread. The truth is that we cannot travel through time without a time machine...

It is amazing to me that you as educator are not more familiar with speed of light, basic physics, or fundamentals of astronomy. But did give me good laugh that you interpret article as meaning NASA had time machine. Haha. I thought you were just small child saying this.

biotchr wrote:....and any supposed origin phenomena occuring beyond what we have in recorded, human history demands one's opinion of the existence and role of a creator or lack thereof. This is hardly scientific at all but more religious.

Haha, this demands no such thing from humans. Because we can study events from the prehistoric past through light that travels to us from distant galaxies, has nothing to do with God's existence. Has nothing to do with religion either.

biotchr wrote:

damien james wrote:Evolution is such beautiful miraculous occurance in its own right

Really? Sounds exactly like some religious experience.

Has nothing to do with religious experience. Has to do with birth of mankind.

biotchr wrote:And by the way, is that natural selection thingy really all that "beautiful"? And what about the "breeder" that should be rightfully inferred from artificial selection as the selection process itself was from Darwin? What am I to think of him/her/it (breeder) for this nasty process that you somehow label as "beautiful"?

First, natural selection is not only detail of evolution. Maybe your misunderstandings about evolution lead to your erroneously derived opinions. Such as evolution needing a breeder. You say rightfully inferred, but what you should say instead is "according to me" or "in my opinion" which is closer to truth since you are not making blanket statement for everyone else that way. I think it is an incredibly ignorant and stupid inference. So therefore, how can it be "rightfully" inferred?

it seems shameful to turn blind eye to it in favor of creationist propaganda

biotchr wrote:Huh? As if evolutionists do not spread misinformation regarding creation. The propaganda exists on both sides, but the problem exists that evolutionists are unable to see both sides. I can, because as a creationist, I am forced to teach your religion to children. And, somehow, I do a great job of it as test scores generally show. But the point is, I am on both sides. I am you for a small part of my life - even warding of creationist arguments to keep the peace in my classroom. Then, after class and school, I am me - equipped with the truth.

The problem is not that evolutionists do not see both sides. Most evolutionists just choose to teach side that has actual scientific evidence supporting it. Of which you have given us on this board none to support creationism.

biotchr wrote:Picture yourself behind a pulpit teaching creation then talk to me about "creationist propaganda". That experience may change your tune. And by the way, uh, does all the creation materials and lessons in our public schools many years ago consitute propoganda?

I would have no problem teaching creation behind pulpit as set of metaphorical stories and teachings. But of course I would not teach it as scientific theory without scientific evidence supporting it.

biotchr wrote:

damien james wrote:Without evolution, we have no biology

Does that mean biology never existed before 1859?

Of course it did. As evolution existed way before 1859. Darwin's thesis has no bearing on the actual existence of evolution as a natural process.

biotchr wrote:

damien james wrote:On side note, I have not seen any biotchr response that scientifically gives firm reasoning for evidence against evolution.

I present facts that show evolution to not be science at all, and, therefore, has no evidence to present for itself or against itself. We all have opinions about the existence and role of a creator or lack thereof, and the scientific method simply wont have it.

You have given no facts whatsover that go against the grain of evolution or show that it cannot be studied scientifically. And noone here has said that that the scientific method should be used to prove or disprove the existence of God. You are here to give your opinion about evolution without taking time to understand and learn fundmentals of biology and living processes. This is very sad to me.

The hand of God may well be all around us, but it is not, nor can it be, the task of science to dust for fingerprints.

Do you believe in a supernatural Catholic God or a stupidnatural Catholic God? Answer me please?

Have you read the Bible? God by His very nature is supernatural.

You still havent caught on have you? That is the way God SAID He did it, therefore, God is not a liar. If God had not informed us of such an event then you could call him a liar.

You still haven't caught on, have you? When did God inform us that He created a universe filled with depictions of false events?

However, the true disgust here is that you use science to consider whether God is a liar while ironically denying any connection to religion. So it is not so much that you dislike my religion, there are many out there for which that holds true. It is that you use science inappropriately and unethically.

Look who's talking. I haven't claimed any connection to science in this thread for the past several days. Unlike you, who pretends to be scientific, I realize that this isn't a scientific debate anymore. This debate has nothing to do with science or evolution. This is purely a religious debate by now (and should probably be moved to the off-topic), and my main purpose is not to debate you using science but the Bible. The truly disgusting thing is that you claim to be scientific while all the time discussing religion and philosophy, not science. Talk about misuse of science.

I find it adverse that you would judge my religion all the while using science to dictate yours.

I'm using the Bible to dictate my religion, not science. As I said above I haven't used science in days. Pay attention.

Again, when did God tell us that He created a universe filled with depiction of false events?

Wake up and realize that you take Darwin's words and the evolutionist's word before God's Word.

Wake up and realize that I'm using the Bible and placing its authority before all else.

Read Genesis then get back to me on that "contradicting" bit.

I advise you to do the same. In case you didn't realize it, Genesis contains two creation stories. In chapter 1, animals are created before man over a period of six days. In chapter 2, man is created before animals. This is just one of many contradictions in the Genesis creation story, and just one bit of much Biblical evidence that the creation stories are metaphorical.

But metaphors for what? I used to wonder that myself, until I finally decided to quit wondering and read the actual book. What I found in Genesis 1 is a near-perfect description of what sounded like the big bang and evolution. Now at the time I was not as big into science as I am now, but this inspired me to investigate. To make a long story short, I have come to learn how God created us, and He basically used exactly what He told us, evolution.

I recommend you read the Bible (or at least Genesis) again before making such false claims.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Wow, as ignorant as you are it makes me fear for future of our children knowing you are educator.

This is because you worship science and scientific knowledge. Our future does not depend on such knowledge unless you actually believe science can answer all of our questions and solve all of our ills. You are guilty of scientism which underlies your above statement. Our kid's future is bright when they make the correct moral decisions NOT when they obtain more scientific knowledge. Knowledge is secondary to knowing how to live life. Without the latter you just have smart people that ruin things. Evolution is a great example of just that and it has ruined science making a religion out of it.

If you will like, I will answer your questions. They are not ones that we on this board have not heard hundred of times before though.

So far this board is like any other I have been a part of and just like the other evolutionists of which I have discussed these matters. On every occassion evolutionists themselves make it very clear that evolution is part of a religion or is a religion that I simply refuse to accept.

biotchr wrote:It is more like a religious discussion, or better yet, a religious debate over, as one member put it, whether God is a liar, if there is a different god, or no god altogether.

Yes, this has turned to religious discussion, which is why I specifically asked what happend to scientific discussion.

I have specifically stated, to the point of being redundant, that there is hardly scientific discussion to have, just religious.

biotchr wrote:Can you not see that using science to study origins of life and life forms simplfies God to the lowest common denominator in order to "play" science.

If you believe that God's only role is creation, then you have way different opinion than majority of Christian in this country. According to Christianity, God is involved in all level of human existence. Using evolution to explain biological development has nothing to do with disproving existence of God or diminishing him. It is shame that you have to interpret it that way.

God's role is many but if you deny His creative act as He has admitted to using in Genesis then the rest of what you believe to be God's role is in question. Creation in 6 days is the foundation of which God has built the rest of his plan. You have used evolution to diminish God's plan making atheism much more attractive. You do realize that evolutionists themselves have admitted that evolution makes atheism much more believable and respectable, right? Evolution serves to distance the supernatural God from our daily lives by making His "creation" process one of a distant stupidnatural god. If people do not see God's power in creation how will they see God's power anywhere else, especially when you continue to negate the need of his existence by explaining where everything around us came about WITHOUT His interaction in the matter.

biotchr wrote:NASA engages in such a game by claiming that it can travel back in time to witness events billions of years ago as suggested in the first post of this thread. The truth is that we cannot travel through time without a time machine...

It is amazing to me that you as educator are not more familiar with speed of light, basic physics, or fundamentals of astronomy. But did give me good laugh that you interpret article as meaning NASA had time machine. Haha. I thought you were just small child saying this.

Its amazing to me that you and others would continue to question my lack of knowledge in science as that only shows the religiosity of our debate. All religions tend to question the level of knowledge that their contending opponents do not have of the religion in question. The fact that the only way to truely understand evolution is to accept evolution is a significant characterstic of evolution's religiosity.

HaHa, I thought it was quite hilarious and still find it hilarious that you, supposedly educated about science, believe we can travel back in time. I have a hard time believing anything else you have to say on this basis. I would love to have access to your time machine. There are many mistakes made in history that I would like to revisit in person, such as in 1859.

biotchr wrote:....and any supposed origin phenomena occuring beyond what we have in recorded, human history demands one's opinion of the existence and role of a creator or lack thereof. This is hardly scientific at all but more religious.

Haha, this demands no such thing from humans. Because we can study events from the prehistoric past through light that travels to us from distant galaxies, has nothing to do with God's existence. Has nothing to do with religion either.

It has everything to do with religion along with YOUR religion. Just because you believe in a stupidnatural god that would take billions of thumb-twittling years to create everything around us does not mean that I believe in such a creator or lack thereof. How dare you have your VERSION of a creator, under the guise of science, be taught to unsuspecting children.

biotchr wrote:

damien james wrote:Evolution is such beautiful miraculous occurance in its own right

Really? Sounds exactly like some religious experience.

Has nothing to do with religious experience. Has to do with birth of mankind.

Which has been a primary component of many religions of which you find yourself neck-deep. The "birth" of mankind is dictated by what you believe in your creator. It is unfortunate that you attempt to make your creator disappear using science as it is not meant to be used in such a way. Science does not tell us ANYTHING about God as notions of God or gods brings bias which is NOT part of science. Origins beyond recorded, human history implies the work of a creator that demands an opinion because we have the ability to THINK about our creator. If dogs could ponder their creator they may have a better chance of using science to ponder their "birth".

biotchr wrote:And by the way, is that natural selection thingy really all that "beautiful"? And what about the "breeder" that should be rightfully inferred from artificial selection as the selection process itself was from Darwin? What am I to think of him/her/it (breeder) for this nasty process that you somehow label as "beautiful"?

First, natural selection is not only detail of evolution. Maybe your misunderstandings about evolution lead to your erroneously derived opinions. Such as evolution needing a breeder. You say rightfully inferred, but what you should say instead is "according to me" or "in my opinion" which is closer to truth since you are not making blanket statement for everyone else that way. I think it is an incredibly ignorant and stupid inference. So therefore, how can it be "rightfully" inferred?

Because the selection process is, so, in order to be logical in our inferences the "breeder" goes to. Whatever "detail" of evolution you choose you are still painting the picture of the creator as origins beyond recorded, human history demands an opinion of a creator. Your opinion of a creator is easily detectable in your belief about natural selection or any other "detail" whether it be punk-eek or whatever. You make the creator out to be a breeder of sorts.

it seems shameful to turn blind eye to it in favor of creationist propaganda

biotchr wrote:Huh? As if evolutionists do not spread misinformation regarding creation. The propaganda exists on both sides, but the problem exists that evolutionists are unable to see both sides. I can, because as a creationist, I am forced to teach your religion to children. And, somehow, I do a great job of it as test scores generally show. But the point is, I am on both sides. I am you for a small part of my life - even warding of creationist arguments to keep the peace in my classroom. Then, after class and school, I am me - equipped with the truth.

The problem is not that evolutionists do not see both sides. Most evolutionists just choose to teach side that has actual scientific evidence supporting it. Of which you have given us on this board none to support creationism.

I do not believe in creation on any scientific basis. Nor do you believe in evolution on any scientific basis.

Religion is best capable of investigating our origins as our origins demands our belief in a creator. Evolutionist's make science into science fiction as they investigate our origins and their stories get more and more interesting.

biotchr wrote:Picture yourself behind a pulpit teaching creation then talk to me about "creationist propaganda". That experience may change your tune. And by the way, uh, does all the creation materials and lessons in our public schools many years ago consitute propoganda?

I would have no problem teaching creation behind pulpit as set of metaphorical stories and teachings. But of course I would not teach it as scientific theory without scientific evidence supporting it.

This is because of your present status within scientism. You define origins, God, and really reality itself by using science. Science is number one for you which is silly as by its definition science is unable to study any creator you could possibly muster. The list of unnatural creators would range from an "eternal universe" to an eternal God. They all fail the scientific method.

biotchr wrote:

damien james wrote:Without evolution, we have no biology

Does that mean biology never existed before 1859?

Of course it did. As evolution existed way before 1859. Darwin's thesis has no bearing on the actual existence of evolution as a natural process.

Which means evolution could be around without your allegiance to materialistic naturalism. Methodological materialism can be acceptable when dealing with phenomena we can actually observe. Your starlight being observed to have originated within your mental construct is unable to be observed other than in your stories involving your stupidnatural creator.

biotchr wrote:

damien james wrote:On side note, I have not seen any biotchr response that scientifically gives firm reasoning for evidence against evolution.

I present facts that show evolution to not be science at all, and, therefore, has no evidence to present for itself or against itself. We all have opinions about the existence and role of a creator or lack thereof, and the scientific method simply wont have it.

You have given no facts whatsover that go against the grain of evolution or show that it cannot be studied scientifically. And noone here has said that that the scientific method should be used to prove or disprove the existence of God. You are here to give your opinion about evolution without taking time to understand and learn fundmentals of biology and living processes. This is very sad to me.

[/quote]

Yes I have shown evolution to be unscientific. First, it is not observable without a time machine, other than observing the words of your stories. Secondly, it is not testable as you are unable to turn a molecule or a cell into a human. Thirdly, the whole investigation fails the scientific method as does any possible hypothesis you can formulate on the count that any origins phenomena that occurs before recorded, human history DEMANDS an opinion about the existence and role of a creator. Your bias is not allowed in science, and your dogmatic stand reflects the nature of allowing unauthorized hypotheses to pass through scientific methods.